Posts tagged "Adams"

Adams v. Congress Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-177-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

15-P-452                                        Appeals Court

MARK ADAMS  vs.  CONGRESS AUTO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.

No. 15-P-452.

Middlesex.     March 10, 2016. – December 21, 2016.

Present:  Kafker, C.J., Vuono, & Henry, JJ.

Negligence, Insurance company, Employer, Foreseeability of harm, Causation, Retention of employee, Entrustment, Emotional distress.  Damages, Emotional distress.  Consumer Protection Act, Responsibility of employer.  Practice, Civil, Summary judgment, Motion to amend. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 21, 2016 at 4:16 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Adams v. Adams (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-182-13)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC‑11488

NICHOLAS C. ADAMS  vs.  NANCY W. ADAMS.

October 17, 2013.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

The petitioner, Nicholas C. Adams (husband), appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.[1]  We affirm.

In 2011, we considered the husband’s appeal from a judgment of divorce from his wife, Nancy W. Adams.  See Adams v. Adams, 459 Mass. 361 (2011).  We vacated that part of the judgment that presently valued the husband’s partnership interest in Wellington Management Company, LLP, and remanded the case for further proceedings “directed solely at valuing that interest” as consistent with our opinion.  Id. at 394.  In all other respects, we affirmed the divorce judgment.  Id.  The husband’s current appeal stems from certain subsequent orders issued in the trial court that the husband claims violate our remand order. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 17, 2013 at 8:07 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,